Tuesday, May 26, 2009

The African race was not in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution when privileges and immunities were provided for the protection of the citizen.Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.U.S. Const., Amend. XIII, §1 (1865).

When the legislature gave to this court the power of granting licenses to practice law, it was with not the slightest expectation that this privilege would be extended to women.In re Bradwell, 55 Ill. 535 (1869).

No person shall on account of sex be disqualified from entering upon or pursuing any lawful business, vocation, or profession.Cal. Const., Art. XX, §18 (1879).

All marriages of white persons with negroes, Mongolians, or mulattoes are illegal and void. Cal. Civ. Code §60 (1933).

The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups. The equal protection clause does not refer to rights of the Negro race, the Caucasian race, or any other race, but to the rights of individuals.Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948).

Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Kennedy, J.).

In light of the fundamental nature of the right to marry, the California Constitution must be interpreted to guarantee this right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation. In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Cal. Const., Art. 1, §7.5 (2008).

Having been approved by a majority of the voters at the November 4, 2008 election, the initiative measure lawfully amends the California Constitution to include the new provision as article I, section 7.5. Strauss v. Horton, ___ Cal.4th ___ (May 26, 2009) (slip op. at 12).

[Prop. 8] reserv[es] the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leav[es] undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Id. (slip op. at 7).

Comments

Maybe this could be deemed on topic if heterosexual marriage could be postured as unfairly competing with non-heterosexual marriage -- at least in a non-consumer context. After all, both goods and services are involved, as well as all sorts of enjoinable representations.